IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] Question

sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in Tue, 29 January 2013 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3904A21F84F9 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:47:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.287, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gg707Mf8rrBU for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (indus.nmsworks.co.in [14.140.238.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F9021F8525 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:47:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.nmsworks.co.in (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by indlocal.nmsworks.co.in (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0T1itig026215; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:14:55 +0530
Received: from 101.63.158.156 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sitaraman) by www.nmsworks.co.in with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:14:55 +0530 (IST)
Message-ID: <49483.101.63.158.156.1359423895.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHgge1t93dyR9amWM3ZOsJYjvU_nogsakN-LMyTrCvPEYuCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <60540.115.242.217.223.1359305486.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B23574324@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL> <64406.115.242.217.223.1359331248.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <CAHxHggdt4MgK4Uwro6gXrrr+aqgkzGRpmwo8_1zFDYn0Z9DQhQ@mail.gmail.com> <65367.115.242.158.9.1359332992.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <CAHxHgge5RFC+bAG6MTWjAGFo6JAegiB+R6eiOM+75p8fuv0wcA@mail.gmail.com> <49280.192.168.9.56.1359345670.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B235749F7@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL> <A6D06B64-E354-47CC-8F32-DF2F8CB51C4C@keltik.co.uk> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B23574C8E@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL> <49368.101.63.158.156.1359422205.squirrel@www.nmsworks.co.in> <CAHxHgge1t93dyR9amWM3ZOsJYjvU_nogsakN-LMyTrCvPEYuCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:14:55 +0530
From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in
To: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-ID: r0T1itig026215
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.9, required 4, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00, BAYES_00 -1.90)
X-NMSWorks-MailScanner-From: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in
Cc: "dtn-interest@irtf.org" <dtn-interest@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Question
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:47:08 -0000

I did, and my understanding is it is an erasure code  with a larger margin
of error allowed for the signal can be recovered from a subset of the
encoded signals...so it still cant handle losses?
Sitaraman

> see Digital Fountain
>
> v
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:16 PM, <sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it correct understanding the coding can only address corruption and
>> not
>> entire looses (or even severe) corruption...? if that is correct, we
>> would
>> still need to address losses....which is the he use case i meant to
>> address with the low bandwidth timestamped "livenss channel" approach,
>> this sending of these liveness neednt even be contin ous, in scenarios
>> where one is willing to tradeoff granularity of detection location that
>> is....?
>> Sitaraman
>>  > No argument from e me, Dai.  A Digital Fountain-like solution seems
>> likely
>> > to be more efficient than repeated transmission.  It seems to me
>> possible
>> > that it might fail (or be less efficient) under some outage scenarios,
>> but
>> > maybe that's a trade that has already been resolved.
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > From: Dai Stanton [mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk]
>> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 11:09 AM
>> > To: Burleigh, Scott C (313B)
>> > Cc: sitaraman@nmsworks.co.in; Vint Cerf; dtn-interest@irtf.org
>> > Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Question
>> >
>> >
>> > On 28 Jan 2013, at 15:54, "Burleigh, Scott C (313B)"
>> > <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > you'd be willing to invest quite a lot of bandwidth in heavy coding
>> and
>> > even repeated transmission (which you can think of as proactive,
>> rather
>> > than reactive, retransmission)
>> >
>> > I'd have to respectfully disagree on this. I prefer to think of
>> repeated
>> > transmission as very inefficient FEC. The ideal pro-active solution
>> IMHO
>> > is to go for a Fountain Code to fix unplanned outages with
>> conventional
>> > FEC being there solely to fix the link budget.
>> >
>> > Dai
>> >
>> > --
>> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> > believed to be clean.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email